Pros
Passionate, expert colleagues: The org is made up of dedicated, knowledgeable people who genuinely care about the charity’s mission. Flexible working environment: The organisation offers remote/hybrid options, which helps with work-life balance.
Cons
Isolated and disjointed teams: While there were occasional socials, team cohesion was almost nonexistent. Even within our own team, we worked in silos. No regular check-ins, no visibility on who was working on what, and no effort from leadership to foster collaboration. Team meetings happened only once a month, and even then, we never discussed workloads, priorities, or progress. It felt like everyone was left to figure things out alone. Outdated and rigid ways of working: Innovation or process improvements were discouraged or ignored, and even small changes took years to implement due to resistance from senior staff. The charity operates with old-fashioned methods that stifle efficiency and creativity. Absent leadership: The head of team and managers were too overwhelmed to provide support or direction. With no clear communication or role expectations, it was impossible to align on goals or recognise growth, let alone reward extra effort. Lack of transparency: Because no one tracked or shared what others were working on, duplication and confusion were common. This made it hard to feel like part of a team or understand how our work contributed to the bigger picture. No recognition for extra work: Without clear role definitions or performance tracking, additional responsibilities went unnoticed and unrewarded. The charity’s mission is important, but the lack of structure and support makes it difficult to stay motivated or engaged.